FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

Have a positive and constructive tone

Are on topic, clear and to-the-point

Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

You are reading comments on the story:

Federal workers aren't the only people who will feel the impact of the president's proposed two-year pay freeze. It could also impact federal unions, government contractors and even some people who work in foreign embassies based in Washington.

If agencies truly want to slash their payroll budgets, they should put more emphasis on recruiting retired Federal employees. As I understand the rules, an agency only needs to pay a reemployed annuitant who retired under CSRS the difference between his/her annuity and the grade level of the position for which he/she is hired. In most cases, that amounts to a savings of 55% or more per FTE for the agency.
For each year of reemployment, the reemployed annuitant increases his/her eventual annuity by 1%; however, if the person remains reemployed for at least 5 years and continues to pay into CSRS, that eventual annuity increases by about 2.5% per additional year worked, retroactive to the first day that he/she became a reemployed annuitant. That's a terrific incentive to stay in the position for 5 years or more, giving an agency a long-term, experienced, stable worker at a substantially reduced cost.
It's a win for the government, a win for the employee, and a win for taxpayers.

Fed_Since_1973- Sounds great, but as a lowely current employee I now have a 5 year promotion freeze while I have to wait for all of you to retire a second time? If they brough you all back as GS-5's I'd be fine since that wouldn't impact headroom, but you'd all want to come gack as GS13-15s.... No thanks, we're all stable and experienced enough already!!

I’m thinking that perhaps some GS-14s/15s, hanging on for one last high 3 pay bump up, but who had otherwise *checked out* of work a long time ago, will suddenly consider retirement; so that, in theory, would open up some higher slots. We’ll see.

But then all the GS-1s, 2s, 3s and 4s would be upset because I was keeping them from getting promoted. I started out as a GS-2, so I know what it's like. But while working at that level, I went back to college and took a few hours each semester until I got my degree. That made all the difference in the world. I stongly recommend it.

I didn't see your previous comment but yes, I have checked the numbers and yes, I would do it in a heartbeat. Sure, I could make more money in private industry... as any of us could... but if I did that, a chunk of my income would be withheld for Social Security which, as a CSRS retiree, I'll never see anyway. However, by returning to Federal service, I would continue to pay 7% of my income into CSRS and after 5 years as a reemployed annuitant, that investment would increase my annuity 12.5% more than it is today. That's the advantage for me. The advantage for Uncle Sam is that he'd get back a worker with a proven track record - someone whose efforts over the past 4 decades have had a positive effect on the life of every American, every day. The advantage for taxpayers is that they'd be getting that worker for just 40% of what the position normally pays.

Please excuse my lack of knowledge. My comment yesterday does not appear here. Since the difference in pay would be so low I would not volunteer for your suggestion. However, that is your perrogative to do so. My question is this. You have 37-38 years in the government. Under normal years the max pension you can get is 80% at 41 years 11 months plus sick leave. Would that max apply for a rehired annuitant? If so then you could not work 5 years and continue to earn a pension. Also, 5 years at 2% does not equal 12.5% Are the rules different for rehired annuitants?

Five years times 2.5% additional CSRS retirement annuity per additional year worked comes to 12.5%. Are you confusing this with the 2% reduction in CSRS annuity you'd be hit with for every year you retire prior to your eligibility date? Those are two very different things. Also, for the first six years of my Federal career, I was a seasonal tax examiner for the IRS. I only worked about six months of each year so, although I began working for Uncle Sam in January 1973, I have amassed just a bit more than 34 years of service. The time I was laid off didn't count toward my years of service when I retired, so I won't hit the upper limit of 41 years, 11 months for another 7 years. And the reason I retired three months ago when I had no intention of retiring yet? Because when I was selected for a lateral position in a different unit four months ago, IRS management refused to release me to take the other job, preventing me from expanding my knowledge base and gaining new skills. That smacked of managerial slavery to me, so I retired. Now I am free to take any job I want and am selected for, and it will just be a continuation of my Federal service as if I'd never left. The difference is that the 62.5% of my high-3 that I'm currently getting in the form of my annuity won't need to come out of an agency's budget. Seems to me that's a pretty sweet deal for whatever agency hires me.

No. I am not referring to the 2% reduction. Under CSRS, for the non law enforcement people, the first 5 years you worked, you got 1.5% per year credit to your pension. The next 5 years you worked you got 1.75% per year credit. The rest of the time you got 2% per year.-----------------------------------------------------Law enforcement is different. I believe, but am no knowledgeable enough to know, 2.5% comes into play for 25 years. Are you law enforcement? Isn't there a 57 year old age limit?---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out your situation as I do not have all of the facts and knowledge to be an expert.

It's easy enough to understand how this two-year pay freeze will decrease the outlay on salaries producing a few billion in savings over the course of that period of time. But how do they arrive at the estimated savings they are stating over 5 and 10 years periods? Do they figure if they freeze pay for the next two years, there will never be any future "catch-up" or compensatory salary raises, and thus the effects will continue beyond the next two years, with savings from lower salaries accruing year after year, and then some additional savings from reduced retirement annuities?

The pay freeze doesn't make me happy either, but have you seen 5 and 10 year projections of the federal deficit? The country is going broke! Cuts have to be made and no one should feel entitled to guaranteed salary increases. We are entering a new era of austerity that will affect everyone. If you don't want the US to look like Europe, suck it up, make some adjustments in your life, and be thankful you have a job and/or a pension. Both will keep you out of the bread lines and soup kitchens that are becoming more popular as those without a job/pension/unemployment/health insurance have already realized.

The real issue isn't the freeze...its saying you're freezing pay to address the deficit. Has Congress ever used extra $$$ to pay the deficit? No, it just gets routed to another program. This is much like a family cutting out cable to save cash and then goes out to eat an extra night every month.
Congress has and will continue to spend like a drunken sailor and the only reason the deficit is a concern is because the American people and other countries governments have expressed the same concern.

This would be acceptable if there was a true desire to reduce the deficit. But first the administration passes bills that put us Trillions of dollars in debt and the deficit commission does not even suggest not putting these budget busters on hold. They don't even mention them! Instead, take the pennies from the middle class federal employees. What a joke this administration is. And now, during open season, take a look at the increase in your medical costs from the insurance companies due to the new health care laws.
So to all of my fellow employees, whose unions back this president, are you happy now?

Were you complaining about the increases to the deficit during the previous administration too? Were you aware that Bush increased the deficit MORE than Obama has increased it? I guess, according to you, the previous administration was an even bigger joke.

When it can to deficit spending the previous administration was also a joke. That's the whole picture. Politicians need to represent us and not their interests. There is no excuse like "the other guy did it so I did too. WRONG is WRONG! That's why the Republicans lost in 2008 and the Dems lost this year.

Let's face it, Obama is just scrambling for position to gain political favor with the mainstream by freezing pay. It was obvious that the Repub's were going to maneuver things that way anyway, so he got the jump on them. On the other hand, anyone who thinks we (civil servants) would have fared better under a Republican regime is absolutely fooling themselves. This was a no-win situation for us. I'm just surprised it took place this year instead of last year when it would have made more sense, and would have resonated better with both the public and government workers. Politicians are politicians - no matter what their stripe. Don't fall into the trap where you believe that either conservatives or liberals will be heroes or saviors. They will all do what is politically expedient at the moment.

Actually, both elections were lost because of the economy and not the deficit. We were in a depression when the Dems won the 2008 election. We are still in a depression when the Repubs won in 2010. Can't say what will happen in 2012 if we are still in the depression. bopth parties will blame each other. The one with the better propaganda machine will win. However, if the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin in 2012, they will lose. They have better candidates with similar views than her.

"If you tell a lie often enough people will start to believe it." That was Clinton's favorite saying. Obama has quadrupled Bush's worse annual deficit and in two years racked up more debt than Bush did in eight years. Get your facts from the Treasury Dept. not NPR or Moveon.org.

You should take your own advice, and get better information.
According to the federal budget's historical tables, the annual deficit exploded (increased roughly a factor of 3) in 2009, under Bush's last budget (which itself was roughly 3 times the previous year's deficit). It's increased about 10% in 2010, and is projected to decrease about 18% in 2011.

...the culprit was both a decrease in tax revenue (thanks to the economic downturn and stimulus efforts) and an increase in spending (TARP/economic stimulus).
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/hist.html

Obama passed the $800 billion stimulus and the $400 billion Omnibus in fiscal year 2009. Just those two items caused an additional $1.2 trillion in deficits over FY 2009 and 2010. Blaming Bush is ludicrous except for the billions he wasted on Medicare part D.

To Joe,
First, the economic stimulus passed under Obama was absolutely necessary to get us out of the Bush depression. This was started under Bush and continued and expanded under Obama.--------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the 2009 budget is Bush's and the Democratic Congress' responsibility. I do not know whether Obama increased it or not.-----------------------------------------
Third, Bush had huge deficits while we were in relative prosperity. obama has even larger deficits while we are in a depression.----------------------------------------
Fourth forget government stats about when the recovery started. Ask your unemployed neighbors in your community.
Fifth, I am fully employed.

Mike, I would also say that retailers and charities would see an impact from the pay freeze. With less disposable income available, they didn't freeze health insurance rates, I'll have less to spend on items I don't identify as necessary to support the family.

said that the burden of these times should be shared by the federal workforce, but he neglected to say with whom it should be shared. What other arbitrary demographic of people will he specifically take money from next? Redheads? Left-handed folks?
If he were telling the truth about sharing, he would raise taxes in an equitable manner. That I would be happy to support.